Hostname: page-component-5447f9dfdb-kxt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-29T05:00:02.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biological Control of Red Alder (Alnus rubra) with the Fungus Nectria ditissima

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Charles E. Dorworth
Charles E. Dorworth*
Affiliation:
Pacific Forestry Centre. Canadian Forest Service, 506 W. Burnside Rd., Victoria, B.C. V8Z 1M5 Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With few exceptions, north temperate North American weeds are native species that have proliferated following site disturbance. Social pressures are rapidly eroding the availability of essential silvicultural tools such as chemical herbicides and prescribed burning. Biological control with microorganisms in forestry is at an early stage of development. An inoculation strategy involving a fungus pathogen (PFC-082: Nectria ditissima Tul./ALDERKILL™), its formulation for biological control of Alnus rubra Bong. in the form of the PFC-MYCOCHARGE™ and a newly devised instrument for bioherbicide delivery into woody stems (PFC-ALDERWAK™) are described. The overall strategy and implements are potentially useful for the delivery of any biological or translocatable material into amenity or orchard trees as well. PFC-082 was the single isolate of N. ditissima tested that produced 100% infection and incited the formation of red alder cankers longer than 0.5 m in 30 mo when inoculated by the method described herein. Natural infections by this pathogen occur on fewer than 1% of red alder stems in the forest.

Keywords

AugmentativeinundativepathogenAscomycotinamycoherbicidepatentvegetation management

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 243 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Arnott, J. A. 1992. Forest renewal by artificial regeneration: a review of research in western Canada. Commonwealth For. Rev. 71:40–46.Google Scholar
2. Capretti, P. and Dorworth, C. E. 1989. Differential reaction in Pinus spp. to inoculation by various isolates of Ascocalyx (Gremmeniella) abietina . Eur. J. For. Pathol. 19:407–413.Google Scholar
3. Dorworth, C. E. 1990. Use of indigenous microorganisms for forest weed biocontrol—the PFC enhancement process. p. 116–119 in Bassett, C., Whitehouse, L. J., and Zabkiewcz, J. A., eds., Alternatives to the Chemical Control of Weeds. Proc. Int. Conf., Rotorua, New Zealand, July 1989, Min. of Forests, FRI Bull. 155, 159 p. Google Scholar
4. Funk, A. 1981. Parasitic microfungi of western trees. Can. For. Serv., Pac. For. Res. Cent. Inf. Rep. BC-X-222, Victoria, B.C. 190 p.Google Scholar
5. Gilmour, J. R. 1984. Two stem injectors. For. Chronol. 60:222–223.Google Scholar
6. Hasan, S. and Ayres, P. G. 1990. The control of weeds through fungi: principles and prospects. New Phytol. 115:201–222.Google Scholar
7. Mortensen, K. 1986. Biological control of weeds with plant pathogens. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 8:229–231.Google Scholar
8. Quimby, P. C. Jr. and Caesar, A. J. 1992. Potential for augmentation of weed pathogens in agroforestry, pp. 125–128, in Proc. GPAC Forestry Comm. Symposium on Forest Biological Control in the Great Plains: Status and Needs, Bismark, ND, July 13–16, 1992. 231 p.Google Scholar
9. Quimby, P. C. Jr. and Walker, H. L. 1982. Pathogens as mechanisms for integrated weed management. Weed Sci. Supp. 30:30–34.Google Scholar
10. Randall, J. M. and Rejmanek, M. 1993. Interference of bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) with growth of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) seedlings in a forest plantation. Can. J. For. Res. 23:1507–1513.Google Scholar
11. TeBeest, D. O. and Templeton, G. E. 1985. Mycoherbicides: Progress in the biological control of weeds. Plant Dis. 69:6–10.Google Scholar
12. Templeton, G. E. and TeBeest, D. O. 1979. Biological weed control with mycoherbicides. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 17:301–310.Google Scholar
13. Wagner, R. G. 1993. Research directions to advance forest vegetation management in North America. Can. J. For. Res. 23:2317–2327.Google Scholar
14. Wapshere, A. J. 1987. Implications of the source of weeds in Australia for the development of bioherbicides. J. Austr. Inst. Agr. Sci. 53:192–196.Google Scholar